++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who’s Really Winning the North Korea Standoff?
By Victor Davis Hanson // National Review
There have been wild reports that the United States is considering a “bloody nose” preemptive attack of some sort on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Such rumors are unlikely to prove true. Preemptive attacks usually are based on the idea that things will so worsen that hitting first is the only chance to decapitate a regime before it can do greater damage.
But in the struggle between Pyongyang and Washington, who really has gotten the upper hand?
With its false happy face in the current Winter Olympics, North Korea thinks it is winning the war of nerves. Yet its new nuclear-missile strategy is pretty transparent. It wants to separate South Korea’s strategic interests from those of the United States, with boasts — backed by occasional nuclear-missile tests — that it can take out West Coast cities.
Pyongyang could then warn its new frenemy, Seoul, that the United States would never risk its own homeland to keep protecting South Korea. So it would supposedly be wiser for Koreans themselves, in the spirit of Olympic brotherhood, to settle their own differences. A failed but nuclear North Korea ultimately would dictate the terms of the relationship to a successful but non-nuclear South Korea.
North Korea might even insincerely offer to dismantle some of its nuclear assets, if the United States would just pull out its forces from the demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel. This strategy would also send the message to the United States that it should have little interest in risking a nuclear exchange over a distant and largely internal Korean matter.
The playbook is that of the old Soviet Union during the Cold War, when it habitually tried to separate Europe from the United States. Moscow warned neighboring Europeans that America would never risk its cities to keep the Red Army out of Germany. At the same time, it advised the United States simply to let Europe go and not risk its homeland for such ankle-biting ingrates.
Meanwhile, North Korea’s patron, China, also thinks time is on the Communist side. Beijing still believes that if Pyongyang can tone down the rhetoric a bit and cut back on the missile testing, things can return to the nuclear status quo of the last decade, which serves China’s interest.
North Korea can continue to be a passive-aggressive Chinese pit bull that diverts American time, attention, and military assets. China can still offer plausible deniability that it has any control over the rogue North Korean government.
Time, however, may actually be on the American side. The situation in 2018 will certainly be better than it was in 2016. Under the prior policy of “strategic patience,” Washington apparently accepted having North Korean missiles pointed at the West Coast. But things are changing in several ways.
First, Japan, South Korea, and the United States are rushing to expand several missile-defense systems that may soon not just end North Korea’s first-strike capability, but China’s as well.
Second, there is serious talk in Japan about developing nuclear weapons. Obviously, Japanese missiles would be pointed at North Korea and China, not the United States. The world has assumed over the last 20 years that unstable regimes such as North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan would go nuclear and threaten Western democracies. The next round of proliferation is more likely to be among Western democracies themselves. A nuclear Japan (or South Korea or Taiwan) would not be in China’s interest.
Third, there is evidence that tough new sanctions are eroding an already anemic North Korea. The U.S. economy is booming; North Korea’s is collapsing. China already is preparing for a flood of refugees across the Chinese–North Korean border.
Fourth, the United States has an array of ways to ratchet up pressure on China to force North Korea to denuclearize — ranging from tougher trade sanctions to denying visas to thousands of Chinese students and property holders.
Fifth, Donald Trump’s approval ratings are up somewhat. And with an improving economy, the Trump administration is gaining clout at home and abroad. On foreign matters, Trump is letting subordinates such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley, and CIA director Mike Pompeo do the talking. And they are lining up the world against North Korea.
It would be a mistake at this time to stage a preemptive attack on North Korea. Bombing the North Koreans would trigger a wider war and disrupt the world economy. But most significantly, it would be an act of desperation, not an act of confidence.
In the current nuclear standoff, the United States is insidiously gaining the upper hand while North Korea becomes even poorer and more isolated. The world may not recognize it, but the U.S. is slowly winning.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Recap by Mike Walters of Bolton's comments.(I edited to conform with my inimical style.)
PDD speaker – John Bolton
At a sold-out audience for this year’s Presidents Day Dinner, John Bolton put virtually all the foreign policy threats into an unvarnished reality perspective.
First on the very topical Russian indictments by Special Prosecutor Mueller, it should have been no surprise. Russia has been doing this for years, and the Obama Administration did virtually nothing about it. In 2014, for example, long before anyone even knew Donald Trump would be running for president, they sent 80 espionage agents to the U.S. to try and disrupt the image of success the U.S. had in the world. They targeted labor unions and even Hollywood too undermine America’s image. They tried to help Bernie Sanders.
With expertise in cyber warfare, they used social media for some of their efforts, but spent a minuscule amount compared to what the campaigns spent in messaging (something like 0.005% of the totals spent by others).
Their goal was not so much to push one candidate or another, but to try to tarnish the American ideals envied by other countries, fearful that American values might undermine their support among native Russians.
Bolton’s message to counter this is to give way more than proportional response to stop meddling. A strong deterrence is needed. He is not a real believer in laws restricting election spending on anyone, he believes in stronger sanctions against foreign spending to influence our elections.
As for the Russian indictments, what is significant is there is still no connection to Trump or anyone in his election campaign. The indictments specified that American citizens were only unwittingly affected by the Russian efforts, not knowing the source.
As for the Democrats mantra that Trump was colluding with the horrible Russians, that is historically very ironic, as Liberals for years have dismissed Russia as a serious threat. It is also worth noting Obama said or did nothing about the known likely Russian meddling until after Hillary lost. The implication is that playing the Russian card after a Hillary election would only undermine her legitimacy. Better to come on strong after Trump surprisingly won to try to de-legitimize him. (Many Trump supporters were actually surprised even on election night when Hillary lost.)
Bolton lamented the rise of Russian influence (and decline of American power) in the eight years of the Obama regime. Russia now has two military bases in the Middle East, the only ones outside the former Soviet boundary lines. Anwar Sadat kicked the Soviets out of Egypt in the 1970s, with a move towards the West.
And the Russian-Syrian alliance fits in with Russia’s move to aid Iran. Who knows how much technology was given to Iran. The Iranians have also managed to turn Iraq into a quasi satellite state under the pretext of fighting ISIS.
As for the Iranian Nuclear Deal in 2015, no one really believes it made us safer. Not only did we remove the crippling economic sanctions against them, we also awarded them with billions in cash and got virtually nothing in return beyond promises to reform. John Kerry was even surprised that Obama gave up the ability to inspect Iranian bases to get some sort of “deal” with Iran, which is the usual concession when doing arms control. (Was he just trying to burnish some foreign policy “legacy”?)
North Korea
Another Obama failed legacy was his “strategic patience” with North Korea, which translates into doing nothing. Susan Rice issued a recent op ed saying it was ok to let North Korea go nuclear, because we were still successful when the Soviets had a nuclear arsenal during The Cold War. Even if detente worked when the nuclear threat was bipolar (US vs. USSR), how much more dangerous is it when there are rogue regimes with nukes, who might sell or give to terrorists who have no fear of meeting their maker, or who even seek to have a glorious martyr’s death. As for trusting Kim Jong-un with nukes, recall he had his half-brother assassinated with siring gas administered by two females in an Asian airport, and ordered torture on other internal perceived opponents.
Only Two Options in North Korea
Given KJU’s resolve to stay in power, either we accept a nuclear North Korea, with an ability to target the US mainland with thermonuclear weapons, or we destroy North Korea's capability with a massive military strike. China is unlikely to be a silver bullet negotiator to disarm KJU and reunite the peninsula, even if it is in their best interest.
The military option carries the risk of KJU retaliation against Seoul.
(Unless our strike takes him out as well, or also simultaneously destroys most of the artillery positioned close to the DMZ.) There is also a possibility of regime collapse after a US massive military strike, occasioned by his military rebellion, but that is a weak hope.
U.S. Military Decline
This was a major message from Bolton. If the US is no longer safe internationally, domestic priorities shrink to trivial. The systematic dismantling of the US military under Obama resulted in a $1.5 trillion decline in spending. The $80 billion boost under Trump is only a small down payment on rebuilding. We have fewer naval ships than we had at the end of World War I. And our enemies, principally China, are arming with sophisticated weaponry. China is expanding in the South China Sea to deny potential oil access to major US allies, and is acquiring hegemony in the Indian Ocean.
Coupled with their cyber warfare capabilities that can knock down crucial grids, no one can say we are safer now that when the Obama Administration self-imposed disarmament began eight years ago.
Trump’s insistence that NATO partners live up to their 2% military budget commitments is not really for their safety, but for ours as well, as a deterrence.
Despite these threats, Bolton remains optimistic on America’s future because of our talented populace and our system of free enterprise.
Q&A Session
1. What are our realistic military options in North Korea? Bolton was confident we could destroy their nuclear facilities and missile and submarine bases. However, there is the real risk of half a million South Korean casualties in a retaliatory strike. For Bolton, the real calculus is how important it is to save a million lives in LA versus South Korea’s devastation or even Tokyo’as a potential next closer target.
What is at stake is how a President Elisabeth Warren would react to a crazy ultimatum from KJU or his successor given the new vulnerability of American cities. (or KJU giving nuclear secrets and technology to terrorist regimes where we could not trace the source of a horrendous attack for retaliation to a fearless adversary.)
2. Could a smaller US force, like the Rangers in Afghanistan, effect a coup or removal of KJU? Any such smaller US pre-emptive strike would leave KJU or his successor with too much fire power to even consider that option?
3. What is the best response to Russia’s meddling in our election process? Strong sanctions for any future instructions, much stronger laws forbidding foreign investment in election ads or processes. Obama’s non-reaction to North Korean threats on SONY may have emboldened others to continue nefarious actions.
Stolen information by China pertaining to millions of individuals may have potential for later blackmail. Cyber warfare is very dangerous to our security.
4. What’s your view of Nikki Haley’s performance as Ambassador to the UN? Very good; She is strong and effective, and doesn’t seem to be constrained by career advisers in the State Department.
5. Has the UN structure been helpful in dealing with North Korea? Suffice it to say that this dirt-poor country of 25 million people has managed to get within months of potentially threatening major American cities with thermonuclear destruction. Also, note the heredity dictatorship of the Kim family has managed to take a North Korea, post WW II with a GDP greater than South Korea, to barely 2% of South Korea’s now.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To all those who attended John Bolton's speech last night and who read my memos I hope you enjoyed the evening and came to a better understanding of the threats we face. John's comments , in many ways, parallel what I have been writing for years and particularly when it comes to our depleted navy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
No comments:
Post a Comment